McLaren MCL32, 2017

Honda engine ‘at level of 2016 Mercedes’

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Honda believes its heavily revised engine will be on a par with Mercedes 2016 power unit from early in the season.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

It’s year three for Honda, surely they’re finally going to deliver now?

I feel like people have really started to underestimate Honda because of the last few seasons, they clearly went the wrong way with the design philosophy behind their engine compared to the other manufacturers. But they were locked into it due to the token system so couldn’t do anything but try to improve it, and even with that massive handicap they still managed to push it’s performance to hit Q3 and finish mid field last year, which is impressive considering the nature of F1.

They are one of the biggest car manufacturers in the world, and now that they’re not locked into the token system I think they will make massive gains. They will most definitely leap forward once they hit the right design setup with their engine, then it will be up to McLaren to have the car to deliver.
JammyB

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Ivz, Jake and Mike Roach!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Happy birthday to Tony Brooks, 85 today, and FIA president Jean Todt, who is 71.

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 120 comments on “Honda engine ‘at level of 2016 Mercedes’”

    1. What a sad figure Alonso is turning out to be. Sounds like his claims before that during Hamilton’s last contract talks Merc and Ferrari discussed possibilities of a driver swap between himself and Hamilton…….which turned out to be untrue.

      1. @blackmamba Perhaps if you had just read the article instead of making claims based on your dislike of Alonso, you wouldn’t look so silly. He clearly states that Mercedes did a check on all drivers, and since Alonso is a driver, logic would suggest that there would be some form of contact between the two parties, especially since it is the most dominant team in F1 history.

        1. But his reasons for wanting to stay at McLaren is s joke!…. “because I’m happy at McLaren”

          So he’s happy to potentially spend another year fighting the likes of TR, FI, Renault and not to get lapped? Really? Alonso? The man who’d probably sell his soul to gain a 3rd title? Please don’t tell me you bought that story, especially after hearing Hasegawa saying were he expects the Honda engine to be at year end?

          So if there was a genuine chance of him joining Mercedes, he was going to turn it down? Come on now.

          1. We have no idea what he really thinks. We have no idea what is said in private throughout their careers as they regularly talk to other teams. We only have answers and thoughts from questions in interviews.

        2. Lol you are twisting @mashiat. He clearly says he turned them down but in a recent interview on the BBC Chequered Flag Podcast Toto made it very clear that because of 2007 Alonso was never an option for the seat. I don’t know why you are getting so emotional I’m sure Alonso and his million$$ will be just fine.

          1. If Toto didn’t want to employ Alonso why did he phone Alonso to see if he was available?

            1. It’s called due deligence

            2. @drycrust, How would they know he’s not an option unless they ask him?

            3. Hmm, well I haven’t heard the podcast where TW flat out said never for FA/LH. If he literally said that, you’d think that quote would have been spun in several related articles by now. As to calling just for due diligence sake? Not buying it. If TW had already said never, he wouldn’t even make the call. What would he have done if FA had said yes, then? Ha ha, just kidding FA? Just wanted to hear what you’d say?

              I just don’t believe that TW would consider there’d still be issues between FA and LH from 10 years ago, and I’m sure well before last year both drivers have expressed that on several occasions. I also wonder, after LH throwing the team under the bus last year, if TW couldn’t care less about what FA on the team would do to LH.

              Much of what happens next year will depend on how things unfold this season wrt car performance, with several drivers also needing fresh contracts or taking options or not, and having had a chance to see what’s what in this new chapter.

      2. @blackmamba Alonso is trash anyway. I think he called Mercedes and not Mercedes him but cause Alonso had black mailed McLaren-Mercedes and caused them a fine of $100 Mil. Mercedes simply rejected Alonso, hence he’s reacting like this. Alonso wouldn’t add nothing positive to the team anyway cause he’s slow in qualifying, poor in the rain and his overtaking skills ain’t something to be proud on. All in all, i understand why Mercedes rejected that poor soul.

        1. @patienceandtime you should regularly change your avatar as I directly jump to the next comment when seeing yours, carfully avoiding to read it? I’m sure others do it too as you never add anything nice to the debate (at least not until I stopped reading you, hope you’ll change your mind?).

        2. @patienceandtime when Toto referenced 2007 he was alluding more to the drivers imploding and letting a rival steal the championship rather than Spygate . But yes, I guess there are many reasons why Alonso was never a realistic option for Mercedes, not least age, team harmony and bitterness. I thought he had mellowed when he rejoined McLaren but the ‘GP2 Engine’ saga proved otherwise.

          1. The reasons drivers meet with other teams is to keep friendliness and options open for the future.

            They don’t mellow. I know an F1 mental coach and he says Alonso’s frustration was normal. It’s a difficult part of his job keeping drivers in a good mental state as not to affect their performance. The drivers act completely differently with adrenaline flowing.

          2. @blackmamba I really doubt TW considers there is still bitterness after 10 years, such that FA is not an option. Besides, all on his own LH disrupted team harmony and showed bitterness, with accusations of them favouring Nico, so from TW’s standpoint one can never predict what might happen with one driver let alone two. I really think he would prefer two WDC’s on the team because Mercedes are racers and they aren’t afraid to manage a rivalry, as they’ve shown. I won’t at all be surprised if we see a driver swap between FA and VB for 2018. That will much depend on how things shake out this season, but I just won’t be surprised.

            1. @robbie have you read Alonso’s recent snipe at Hamilton saying maybe he could have won if he had copied Rosberg’s data? That right there sounds like someone who is bitter to me taking cheap shots like that. And it’s not just Toto who doesn’t think Alonso would not be good for Mercedes. One of the most senior figures at Mercedes Costa feels there is no way that Mercedes should hire Alonso. http://www.grandprix247.com/2016/12/08/aldo-costa-i-do-not-see-alonso-at-mercedes/

            2. @blackmamba You create excuses for your arguments. Perhaps you should learn the difference between a joke and having a go. Alonso was not insulting Lewis. He was making a joke, and a valid one at that.

            3. @blackmamba You can’t possibly believe there is any bitterness toward LH from FA. How childish and immature do you think FA is? Their clash was 10 years ago. They’re so long ago over all that.

          3. And so you think Hamilton or Vettel would have handled it better? Absolutely not – especially Hamilton.

            Alonso (and Button) handled what turned out to be the worst showing from a major team in modern F1 times (17 DNFs between them) admirably.

            I think pushing his broken down crap wagon into the paddock in a attempt to get another qualy lap in trumps the GP2 statement or anything else that hasn’t met your approval.

        3. It’s a shame you have to spoil one of the best comments sections/forums for F1 with anti-Alonso nonsense.

          The transcript of the court case over McLaren having Ferrari data is available online. Alonso’s part was so insignificant he didn’t even have to attend court. It was Ron Dennis who in informing the FIA thinking it would make him look good resulted in the fine. Spying and cheating is happening all the time, that incident was farcical and certainly not worth getting yourself bitter over. Especially over a driver who has always been fair on the track.

    2. Your tweet makes a good point about the liveries, Keith, however there is still a largely black (and messy) McLaren, a more black Renault (it looks like the last banana that always gets left from bushel), a silver / grey Force India (shockingly bad), and Mercedes is, well, Mercedes. In my opinion this is more of a side step, than a forward step.

      Also, we have lost one of the most colourful and elegant liveries and, in my opinion, the best livery of 2016, Manor.

      This year I was hoping for the original black and white Sauber colours, but thank heavens they didn’t. I’ve heard Toro Rosso are doing something new this year. Matte too, maybe?

      1. @strontium Indeed but as I touched on here I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for the non-black bits to change colour – at least not this year:

        http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2017/02/24/compare-the-new-2017-mclaren-with-last-years-model/

        1. Yesterday Andrew Benson said the car was likely to be white and orange. I ate my words I thought graphite and orange, it’s black and orange, to a colour blind person I wonder how much do the Renault and McLaren differ. STR is a bit restrained as RB tries to run the team semi-independently.

          1. @peartree I’m not a big fan of either the Mclaren or Renault liveries, but as a colour blind person, I can assure you that there’s no issue for me identifying the two.

            1. @jamiefranklinf1 correct me if I’m wrong but it depends on the pathology right? Some people might have trouble while others don’t.

              Btw have you tested the new glasses?

            2. @johnmilk Yeah, there are. I’m red/green, which I think is probably the most common type, but I’d be surprised if there was anyone who would mix the two up. Nevertheless, would have been much better if the black and white were swapped on the Mclaren.
              And no I haven’t! I’d like to though

            3. Good to know @jamiefranklinf1 , I’m no expert, fortunately I can’t imagine how someone can mix up red and green but that is indeed the most common case of colour blindness. I knew someone that couldn’t tell the difference from yellow to orange red and then brown. I thought teams did try to avoid squandering their marketing prospect by not running similar liveries.

            4. @peartree It wouldn’t be so much that I confuse the two colours, but if they’re next to each other, it’s almost like they play tricks on my eyes and become hard to differentiate. The ones I do struggle with ate mainly dark blues and purples, dark reds and browns, yellows and light greens. Basically the colours would have to be very similar in shade for me to struggle. I feel the Mclaren’s orange is dark enough not to worry.

          2. Probably more than the McLaren and Force India did last year (I was quite worried about that before the McLaren team revealed it had been taking stylistic cues from Force India’s predecesor).

        2. Nothing wrong for me with black bits. Colours are very varied just hoping Haas signed a big deal with 7 UP so we can have a green car. Not many major colours missing the way things are looking and a large change from a few years back.

          1. That would be ace @markp

      2. @strontium There’s a good chance Toro Rosso could be running a light blue livery, could be exciting.

        1. @lolzerbob if as rumoured, the light blue livery exists and is to promote the sugar free red bull drink, I hope it is mainly light blue and not 50% silver like on the cans

      3. @strontium I agree to being disappointed with the McLaren livery. I wanted mainly orange, so much black ruins it for me. Even would be an improvement if the black and white were swapped, as @jamiefranklinf1 @peartree suggested, but I am happy that there’s a large amount of diversity on the grid, far less grey and silver as in recent years

        1. @3dom Don’t care about either black or white. Just orange was fine. I was just saying that after the BBC said it was going to be white and orange, fake news from bbc? In the real world it had to be black and orange. I’m of the same opinion as you, orange all the way.

    3. Michael Brown (@)
      25th February 2017, 0:49

      How to win 2016 F1 championship:
      – Build Honda engine in 2017
      – Use time machine to travel to 2016

      1. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Honda swap McLaren for RB if McLaren slacks off. To be brutally honest McLaren chassis haven’t been close to the top ever since Hamilton left them.

        1. Hmmm I wonder why?

          Jenson politiced his way to being the main man within the team, even though in 2012 he was leading his side of the garage down a blind alley & they eventually had to switch him over to using Lewis’ setup, the same thing happened at Brawn, there’s a history there.

          The Honda he won with in 2006, most of the development work was done by Ant Davidson as was the Brawn.

          And let’s be honest, this McLaren/Honda relationship has been a total failure so far and doesn’t look like it will ever succeed.

        2. @peartree I’m curious to know where did you get that the mcLaren chassis was that bad? From what I understood is that it is a good chassis but somehow not optimal because of lack of engine power and hence couldn’t add drag to the car. But maybe you have better infos to share?

          1. @spoutnik and luke I said, “haven’t been close to the top ever since Hamilton left them”. Where did I get the idea? I watch f1… @blackmamba watches f1 too.

            1. @peartree sorry but I don’t even understand what you say :s

        3. Your statement knocking McLaren is pure rubbish to put it mildly.
          The problem was horsepower which I thought was obvious to all (although there one who thinks otherwise).

          http://www.grandprix247.com/2015/09/04/alonso-we-have-one-of-the-best-chassis-on-the-grid/

          1. you claim the problem was horsepower not chassis related but back in 2014 when they had the best power unit they got beat by Williams and Force India…..

            1. Yes but first they didn’t have the best power unit and certainly not in terms of what Williams or FI was getting and second teams don’t stay at the same level you know.
              How to you know they haven’t made better calculations for later chassis?

              Anyway it’s pointless since they couldn’t built what they wanted anyway since they had to put less downforce to reduce drag because the engine wasn’t strong enough.

      2. Copy ideas off Red bull aero and Mclaren chassis before getting in time machine

        1. *Mercedes chassis

      3. Don’t be silly. The time machine belonged to Ron Dennis. He took it with him when he left.

    4. Now that we have seen a few 2017 cars I have a few thoughts.

      I like the wider tyres, wider cars & lower/wider rear wing. I think the sidepods not extending outwards to the edge of the floor looks a bit weird but overall I think those changes are all cool. The sweptback design of the front wing/rear wing endplates I don’t really care about either way & to be honest I don’t really care either way about the width of the front wings.

      However I’m really not a fan of some of the flaps & other aero bits that are starting to reappear on the cars. Things like the shark-fin, The weird T-wing at the back of the Ferrari engine cover & some of the stuff towards the front of the side-pod’s & down the side of the cockpit & especially the front wing’s.

      A part of me kind of appreciates the detail & complexity of some of that stuff & tries to understand what there designed to do, Where there directing air & what the air going from there does etc… However aesthetically I think there all ugly & think most of it is a negative from a racing perspective.

      The new rules were supposed to make the cars look more aggressive, Faster & racier. However while wider & more complex aerodynamically, overall I don’t think any of the cars launched so far really look too much different to the cars from the past few years. Wider with some more aero nonsense on them, But the basic shapes & designs are the same.

      1. “But the basic shapes & designs are the same.”

        Are we looking at the same cars? I mean sure they’ve all got the got typical elements but they’re pretty different in every respect. Without really changing the entire formula to closed wheel or cockpit or specifying sub-optimal dimensions, I don’t really know how they could change it up that greatly. I think the major changes of lowered rear wings (although I think they make the “shark fins” look a bit goofy, they should at least reduce in height down to the wing) and wider rubber really produce the desired result.

        I kind of agree with all the minute dangly aero bits and slots not really being a positive, but at the same time you can tell a lot of work’s gone into developing them and they really showcase the level of engineering involved unlike with the engines which are all hidden away.

      2. If you put a 2008 McLaren compared to a 2014 McLaren, and ask a person who has no knowledge of F1 which one looks more futuristic, I bet they choose the 2008 McLaren because of all the additional aero bits. TBH I like the additional detail, yes the T-Wing is odd and looks a little weird, but at least its better than the X-Wing… If the cars need aero, lets give it to them on the highest point of the car, so that the air flow is as disturbed from the car in front so they can run closer… Larger front wings won’t work when following another car…

        1. isn’t* as disturbed

        2. Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
          25th February 2017, 8:18

          Good point

    5. I do hope Mclaren has a better year….I really do….the spot needs a competitive Mclaren team. If they are not mixing it in the top four….it would be very sad.

    6. I think McLaren’s chassis is at the level of 2016 Mercedes as well.

    7. Maybe if Alonso had the ability to beat a rookie he would have been champion in 2007…… 😂😂

      1. He had the ability. To suggest otherwise is nonsense. I will admit he caused his own downfall. I’m almost certain that had he not acted immaturely, he would have won the 2007 title.

        1. He didn’t have the ability or else he would have. Hamilton would beat him now just like he did in 07. Alonso has admitted Mercedes came to him about a drive for 2017 but Alonso didn’t want no part of Hamilton.

          1. @Damon85 I don’t believe that, sorry. To be honest i think Alonso doesn’t want his reputation destroyed if he could get that Mercedes seat, i simply don’t believe that Alonso wanted to rejected that offer, no way. Mercedes simply rejected Alonso on what happened in 2007.

            1. Alonso confirmed Mercedes asked Alonso but his reply was that he is with McLaren.

        2. McLaren had to help Alonso win in Monaco. Which almost cost them a penalty for “illegal team orders” at the time. They kept Hamilton back by over fueling his car and not letting him use the extra fuel because going longer was a bad idea due to the safety car threat. So why would they over fuel Hamilton’s car every stint including qualifying then? Well to make him slower by about half a second a lap so Alonso had a chance. It was quite sad what happened there.

          If anything what Alonso did cost Hamilton the championship. Alonso didn’t stand a chance against Hamilton really. If McLaren hadn’t been so stupid to force Hamilton to drive until the canvas was visible on his tyres he would have scored plenty pionts there and would have had the WDC in the pocket.

          1. @patrickl Well said mate.

      2. As time has passed it’s become clear that was no ordinary rookie. That rookie has turned out to be a great driver and 2007 for me was his best year. Alonso threw a hissy fit, lost focus and lost. Hamilton has had similar stumbles like 2011 and to some degree last season.

    8. Sorry to bang on about something as trivial as a livery, but I can’t get my head around the fact that a brand consultancy company HELPED to design the paintjob. I don’t understand how two companies (this The Clearing they are talking about and McLaren, the team that cares the most about looks and impression in the whole world) decided this was the right way to go. Even last year’s plain old black and red car at least made some sense.

      But this one? yes, there’s a lot of hype about the colour, but they said they decided orange because of the fans. At least make an effort. What’s the deal with a brand consultancy company that suggest something this ridiculous?!

      It’s not just the unimaginative way the orange is splattered around the car, without following ANY shape of the actual car, but the white, oh my god the white. What’s that thing doing there at the bottom? why is it there? why is it shaped like that?

      “The car is a radical departure from the days when the name of car and livery was determined by title sponsor logos.”

      That’s easy to say when your car is completely empty of sponsors (which is a major worry). But Manor also lacked sponsors, and they did a better job last year than probably everyone else on the grid, and surely with just 2 cents in their pocket.

      I’m just staggered at the way things are these days. Instead of actually using common sense and designing something beautiful and sexy, they need a brand consulting company to help designing such a mess. Probably because they did 20 powerpoint presentations about how people react well to 3 colours instead of just 2, or how orange and black is better because that’s the colour they paint their road cars and people correlate with that, or whatever.

      1. They probably dropped a line like orange is the new black during that presentatiom

      2. As someone who comes from management consulting, I have to fully agree to your views on brand consulting (to be honest, all consultancies are similar).

        Car livery design should be best left to an intern in the company. They have the right bit of outside perspective and inside understanding of the company and passion for motorsport.

      3. @fer-no65
        As a graphic designer, I gotta say this livery is pathetic. It reminds me of something I would put together in Papyrus’ Indy Car car painter, back in 1994, when I was 10 years old. I’ve seen an average fan come up with liveries 10 times better for various mods that community did 10+ years ago. And to think they even employed a consultancy firm to help with the design.

        My guess:

        They really wanted to cash in on this “orange” thing, to really pander to fans, that so many bigwigs wanted to make sure it was good enough. And there’s nothing worse than a bunch of bigwigs getting all involved into creative process. What you get in the end, when everyone and their dog weighted in, is a horse designed by a committee – a camel…

        1. McLaren stated they went with orange, because it was what the fans wanted.

          Ok if that were true, I doubt “that’s” what they wanted. When it was first unveiled, it looked and immediately my thought was, “did they use the same guy who painted the Marussia?”

          That paint scheme is horrible! There’s a pic floating on Reddit, showing it with white instead of black, which looks a million times better

        2. Also: “We’re trying really, really hard not to be Ron Dennis’ McLaren”…

        3. Can you prove you’re a graphic designer? Please send in your design to Mclaren Thought Leadership Centre, Woking or post it here. Otherwise shut it you felt tip.

          1. That’s rude and uncalled for Bob. Why should Biggsy prove it, just to appease you? He (she?) never said he had done a design, so with all respect, you should be the one “shutting it, you felt tip”

            1. He calls himself a graphic designer. Read his comment.

            2. I read his comment, and he said he is a graphic designer. But he never said he had designed a McLaren livery, which was my point. You don’t need to have done something to have an opinion on the aesthetics of something else.

        4. Can you prove you’re a graphic designer? Please send in your design to Mclaren Thought Leadership Centre, Woking or post it here.

      4. I’m surprised there haven’t been any “Orange is the New Black” jokes yet :D

      5. @fer-no65 Plus. One. Hundred.

        You have honestly summed up my thoughts perfectly. Honestly I couldn’t agree more with every single word. Especially the bit about how Manor achieved something so good with no budget. And the bit about how pathetic this is. Actually, just the entire comment.

        I echo what Biggsy said too. I studied design for many years, and this was the sort of thing that you would never use as an example because of how bad it is. It doesn’t follow lines naturally, it doesn’t follow any set rules, it doesn’t look good. Ask a five year old to draw some curves on the car, maybe this is where they’d put them.

      6. @fer-no65 perfect summation. What gets me is how much the brand consultancy company will have gotten paid for doing it.

        1. @3dom I would actually love to know that. Either way, I’ll never be using them now (not that I would ever have done anyway, but you never know).

    9. totally agree with the COTD. If you look at it, Mercedes is the only one to win with a Mercedes PU so far. Ferrari and even Renault with their dog years in 2014-2015 have won. Clearly the pressure is now on McLaren side, if they can design a car up to the fight with Mercedes, now possibly having a good PU.

      1. @matiascasali You are right, but i think that the drivers can’t really tell the engineers where to improve, cause when you have a problem with the car the driver driving the car needs to pin point where to improve so the engineers can do their job. For example, look 2009. That McLaren was almost two seconds of the Brawn but when you have a driver that can explain what the problem is and where to improve then the engineers can do their work. Also check McLaren and Mercedes in 2013 when Hamilton left McLaren, that alone should explain it.

        1. Peppermint-Lemon (@)
          25th February 2017, 13:26

          It was Nico that Mercedes relied more heavily on for car direction seeing that he is fully qualified at degree level in engineering. He can understand the technical details in full. That was the primary USP that Mercedes valued.

          1. @peppermint-lemon what are you talking about Nico IS NOT a qualified engineer. Without Lewis in 2012 Mercedes finished 5th in the standings but when Lewis arrived in 2013 with his development skills the team shot up to 2nd only behind the might of Redbull. If you look at McLaren as well they were winning races every single season Lewis was with the team but soon as he left they have ZERO wins. In fact they have only managed 2 podiums since. Coincidence? I think not!!!

    10. “The new car livery is a significant shift away from the traditional coach lines and go-faster stripes associated with Formula 1.”

      Is this a joke?

      1. Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
        25th February 2017, 8:22

        I thought the same, what a tacky unprofessional comment from a corporate company. Wouldn’t be so bad but they’ve turned out a hideous design and that’s their only job here.

        1. I too thought it must’ve been a joke

    11. Wow, so McLaren actually paid people whose occupation is branding to come up with that livery… that hurts my brain on more than one level.

      1. Zak’s marketing genius is already paying for itself.

      2. Looking at Zak Brown’s experience, I would think that the only thing he could do better than Ron Dennis would be a livery. I guess I was wrong.

        1. Well…Zak can use his vital marketing drivel, er, knowledge to coin terms that are even outside of the Ronspeak lexicon.

          That’s sort of like a talent. But better? Uh…there’s a word for that…. a word that discountenances the preferable deployment of adjective description.

    12. I’ve come across a couple designers on Instagram that have been pumping out liveries for the 2017 cars ever since the end of the 2016 season and they blow ALL of the liveries seen thus far out of the water. Some guys are even skilled enough to put retro/classic liveries on the 2017 cars and they still look great. These guys are doing it for free and it still looks 10x better than what these teams are coming up with.

      But at the end of the day I wouldn’t care if all the cars were black with different coloured numbers if it meant we had some on the edge racing to watch!

      1. As I’ve mentioned in another comment, back in 2004 or 2005, we were making all kinds of liveries for fan-made mods for an F1 game. Every single livery that made it into the final selection was 10x better than anything they have this year. Perhaps Mercedes looks cool as it’s their thing and it’s not bad.
        I remember I also did 1992 or 1993 paint job on a 2004 Ferrari. Looked really cool with that deep red and a lot of yellow-black elements.

      2. @bnkracing I too, have found a load of concept liveries. As you say, every single one of them better than what McLaren have done. That, for me, is partly why it is so disappointing – it wasn’t even close to how good these were

      3. Oh come on. Even Sean Bull says that Mercedes did a better job at their 2017 livery than he did.

        The teams also have to work with the advertising they sold, while the Instagram designers can do whatever they want.

        Also the colors in those Instagram designs look better, but they are not the colors that are actually supposed to be used for the branding. So whats the point?

        The renders also look more shiny and pretty than the actual cars. Again, that won’t translate into real live.

    13. RE: COTD. Being a top manufacturer isn’t an entitlement to being competitive, you still need the right personnel, right structure and right ideas to be successful even with the money. Many top manufacturers have dropped out of many racing series due to a lack of return on investment.

      “F1 2017 is looking great. 20 of these in red, blue, orange, silver, yellow and more hammering down to turn one? Bring it on already.”

      Hear hear! Can’t wait, so excited.

    14. Amidst debate on whether the new cars look good or not, we all seem to be forgetting the possible introduction of the Halo next year :p

      1. Fudge Kobayashi (@)
        25th February 2017, 8:12

        But the discussions are about the 2017 cars that have just been unveiled, why would we be discussing the Halo? With Ross Brawn at the helm the aero formula may actually change quite dramatically and resemble something half decent next year, but no point discussing any of it at this stage my friend.

      2. I have enough safety problems with the Halo without bringing aesthetics into it – my brain doesn’t want to handle the aesthetics of those grab bars…

        1. The grab bars might counter the visual offensiveness of the billboards, er… shark fins. Two warts make a beauty spot after all.

    15. Disagree with the COTD completely. Despite being a big manufacturer of cars with large resources, you need to get things right. Just look at Toyota as an example of enormous resources being spent unwisely. The fact is that all of Honda’s competitors are big manufacturers as well, with equally large resources and with a talent pool that has more relevant F1 experience. Token system might help Honda catch up quicker, but there is a strong chance of them not catching up at all, and more importantly lacking that innovation that makes Honda the benchmark to reach.

    16. Boggles my mind that McLaren worked with a “brand consultancy” in designing that livery. The nonsense they spout in that article about the livery being somehow untraditional or innovative was just pure designery BS. If it were a company without in-house designers it’d be one thing, but this is a company with entire teams of people devoted to aesthetic design. That they had to go out-of-house, and that that was the best they could do is embarrassing.

      1. ExcitedAbout17
        25th February 2017, 8:05

        best quote from that article: “The car is a radical departure from the days when the name of car and livery was determined by title sponsor logos.”

        Not impressed with Zak Brown yet, the hot air guru will only get a title sponsor in 2018 (I’m willing to title sponsor them this year, just ring me Zak), he must have been the one who opened the door when Dennis left, and now all this BS about ‘brand consultancies’ and ‘radical departures’.

        PS – thanks for getting some colour back into the car, and firing up alonso this season.

    17. Williams has been launched!

      1. Really? At which dock?

    18. I love the look of the actual McLaren but the lack of effort on that livery pains me. In fact, that is the reason why there is so much distaste; the collaboration with “the branding comp” is everything wrong with the world: not enough people in actual jobs that provide a valid service to community; not enough jobs created in true innovation industries to promote progression of society; too many people in fake jobs talking crap, taking maximum pay, and an output of low productivity.

      Surely aesthetics doesn’t need to be discussed or pandered to. They could simply have just gone on internet, picked the best looking and painted it!

      Where’s Damon, the super sarcastic guy? He had the right attitude to this stupidity

    19. I seem to be in a minority, but I really like the McLivery.

      I don’t like bullcrap corporate design-speak, though… it’s not like they’re the only team using outside consultants on paintjobs. I can’t really see the point in any of the teams employing their own graphic wizard-chappies on full-time contracts, so I’d expect all of them outsource that particular side of their business.

    20. I checked out that CNN sponsor on the Mclaren and they are bad news. No-one will take Mclaren seriously until they drop that dodgy sponsor. What are they (CNN) even doing here?

      1. @mtizzy-66 Exactly. Look who owns CNN, the ”one procent” with fabricated news and then having the guts to talk about ”fake” news cause people are waking up.

        1. failed attempt at sarcasm or did you miss the sarcasm of the original post?

    21. McLaren looks good, nose is awesome. Fin is camoflagued by the lighting and colourscheme..

      And if they have 2016 Mercedes power, what does that make them? 1s off pace by default? What kind of more than podiums are they aiming for?

    22. To be honest i don’t like the McLaren livery, back in the day orange was ok but not in this time. I really hope for their sake to get their act together cause the clock is ticking.

    23. 2016 pre-season test level or 2016 Abu Dhabi GP level?

    24. https://twitter.com/waygoodF1/status/835522597777461248 New Haas. Frankly, I don’t like that this is the third car where blackish gray is a dominant colour, but like how aggressive it looks.

    25. Lewis’ last 3 years > Alonso’s 15 year career. Alonso should focus on trying to get another podium before he tries to come for the king.

      1. Who ever hating the honda. Remember that Japanese hardwork is no match to any others in the world. They failed to update the engine in 15′ and 16′ seasons because of the token system. Now they can unleash whatever the upgrade required for the engine. And who ever say Hamilton is the king. Even the king needs to surrender when another king got the forces stronger than him. Vettel, daniel, alonso lacking the extra punch in their cars. Alonso case is even worse. But the new season, new engines, new rules. Who knows the competition will be healthy. That’s what f1 needed

      2. By that method Vettel is king. 4 time champion means more titles than any active driver. Vettel>Hamilton. I don’t necessarily believe that but by you method Vettel is king.

        1. Lewis has many more wins\poles than Seb and looks to be in the better situation this year as well. Vettel is winless in 2 of the past 3 years.

    26. ”People complained when Michael Schumacher and Ferrari exerted a similar monopoly but at least the Italian team had the benefit of a warm-blooded charisma resulting from decades of triumph and tragedy. Although Mercedes can boast an even longer history, it lacks the same romantic appeal to the emotions of the average fan.”

      – What a lousy excuse to claim that the Ferrari dominance was less boring than the Mercedes one, just because Ferrari has been in F1 for a longer period than Mercedes doesn’t mean their dominance was less boring than the Mercedes one. When Ferrari was in the same position as Mercedes the last three seasons, only one driver was winning races on a regular basis. At least with Mercedes, the race wins between the two drivers driving a superior car have divided more equally than between the Ferrari drivers in 2002 and 2004, so my point is that a one-team dominance is bearable as long as both drivers can and are allowed to win races.

    27. Toro Rosso with last year’s Ferrari power unit wasn’t too bad. So McLaren Honda might be ok.

    28. Quote form Honda:

      “I don’t know how much gain Mercedes is hoping to make. But of course we are aiming to achieve the top level of the PU, which is Mercedes at this moment, but we don’t know how much power they are making now.”

      How about MORE?

      “But I am feeling that we are not behind from them (from start of 2016), but I think we will catch up with them at the beginning of the season.”

      Honda will only be 1 year behind by the end of the season…not exactly a confidence builder. OTOH, McLaren and Honda have said that it would take them at least 3 years to get back to regular podiums, so from that perspective they’re on more or less on schedule.

    29. The headline is wrong @keithcollantine they expect the engine at the beginning of the season to be the same. They still need to do an update to even achieve it. Worrying times to be honest.

    30. Fact: 2016 Rosberg won the title and retired; Alonso was tenth of twenty-four; after a nasty incident, he was denied at least one start, and still scored more that double the points of his team mate, another WDC. Now “we” (F1 fanatics) ramble off into double-guessing, supposition and insults?

      “Sad figure”, “untrue”, “total failure”, “didn’t have the ability” might, or not, be valid opinions, but they appear as sour-puss, armchair comments. How many of you have actually raced motorcars? How many of you have driven at over 150mph? How many of you enjoy a multi-million dollar salary, albeit for just a few prime years? How many of you can actually say “I had the adrenalin and the gonads to start, overtake and be on the podium”?

      I apologize to all of you who believe that F1 is only a “spectator” sport, Roman gladiators and BenHur chariots, death and injury on utube and twitter. I believe it’s man and machine, the risk of sliding on an oil patch, the balls-to-the-wall satisfaction of a perfect overtake, the dejection of an engine failure, the glory of being a champion.

    Comments are closed.